Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41007976›Full record

ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025

Governance Perspectives on Genetically Modified Animals for Agriculture and Aquaculture: Challenges for the Assessment of Environmental Risks and Broader Societal Concerns.

Marion Dolezel, Michael F Eckerstorfer, Marianne Miklau, Anita Greiter, Andreas Heissenberger, Stefan Hörtenhuber, Sarah-Joe Burn, Werner Zollitsch, Karen Kastenhofer, Kristin Hagen and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Marion DolezelLand Use & Biosafety Unit, Umweltbundesamt-Environment Agency Austria, Spittelauer Laende 5, 1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-0037-6203
Michael F EckerstorferLand Use & Biosafety Unit, Umweltbundesamt-Environment Agency Austria, Spittelauer Laende 5, 1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-6827-904X
Marianne MiklauLand Use & Biosafety Unit, Umweltbundesamt-Environment Agency Austria, Spittelauer Laende 5, 1090 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-6668-2890
Anita GreiterLand Use & Biosafety Unit, Umweltbundesamt-Environment Agency Austria, Spittelauer Laende 5, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Andreas HeissenbergerLand Use & Biosafety Unit, Umweltbundesamt-Environment Agency Austria, Spittelauer Laende 5, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Stefan HörtenhuberDepartment of Agricultural Sciences, BOKU University, Gregor-Mendel-Straße 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-0602-3049
Sarah-Joe BurnDepartment of Agricultural Sciences, BOKU University, Gregor-Mendel-Straße 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0009-0007-8924-9185
Werner ZollitschDepartment of Agricultural Sciences, BOKU University, Gregor-Mendel-Straße 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-8070-7449
Karen KastenhoferInstitute of Technology Assessment, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Bäckerstraße 13, 1010 Vienna, Austria.
Kristin HagenDivision Assessment Synthetic Biology, Enforcement Genetic Engineering Act, Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Konstantinstr. 110, 53179 Bonn, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4678-478X
Margret EngelhardDivision Assessment Synthetic Biology, Enforcement Genetic Engineering Act, Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Konstantinstr. 110, 53179 Bonn, Germany.

Funding

Federal Ministry for the Environment, Climate Action, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety / Federal Agency for Nature Conservation FKZ3522841700
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biotechnological applications in animals are increasingly developed for use in agriculture and aquaculture to tackle breeding challenges in animal production. By examining two case studies of genetically modified (GM) farmed animals relevant to the European Union, slick-haired cattle and growth-enhanced carp, we highlight the challenges for environmental risk assessment and discuss available assessment approaches to address broader societal concerns. We find that the existing guidance for environmental risk assessment of GM animals available in the European Union faces several challenges. Assessing risks of GM animals in agriculture and aquaculture requires consideration of the farming systems of these animals. In addition, we find that there is a lack of guidance and practical implementation to address wider issues, including cultural, societal, ethical, and socio-economic issues, as well as animal health and welfare issues, related to GM farmed animals. We propose using existing assessment frameworks to address the sustainability of GM farmed animals beyond environmental risk assessment. Sustainability assessment approaches should also address potential farm-level sustainability claims of GM animal applications. We note that issues related to animal health and welfare are cross-disciplinary topics that require special attention when commercializing GM farmed animals. We recommend developing a comprehensive framework, including risk assessment, sustainability assessment, and technology assessment, that will enable policymakers to better anticipate and address the societal, legal, ethical, and governance issues associated with emerging biotechnologies in farmed animals.

Indexed as

animal welfareenvironmental risk assessmentgenetic modificationgenome editinglivestocknew genomic techniquesrisk governancesustainability assessmenttechnology assessment

Identifiers

PMID41007976
PMCPMC12466804

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.